Scandinavia-gate: Climate cooling, but scientists “hide the decline”

contributed by John O’Sullivan

It looks like we now have the evidence of a full-blown Scandinaviagate to further crush the credibility of the crooks that run the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Climate skeptic blogger Frank Lansner at Hide the Decline (EU) has done an excellent job in bringing to our attention the analysis of Swedish scientist and skeptic, Dr. Wibjorn Karlen from Stockholm University, who has studied the Scandinavian temperature records between 1900 and 2000.

Dr. Karlén has debunked the fraud of the IPCC for falsifying the temperature of the Scandinavian region at the end of the 20th century to make them appear a staggerring 0.7 Degree Centigrade higher than actually existed.

In fact, the peak in temperatures for this cold northern European territory occurred not in recent years, but between 1930-50. After compiling data from all the available data sources in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden Karlén found that:

“The very significant temperature peak around 1930-40 has been reduced almost removed totally.”

In the left hand graph Karlen shows a plot of 25 data series from the NordKlim database.

On the right graph we see the IPCC´s temperature spread for the area–it wholly fails to show the actual cooling that occurred in Scandinavnia from 1940-1980. Is this yet another example of IPCC’s attempt to hide the decline?

Dr. Karlen is professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University. He is famous for critiquing the Associated Press for hyping climate fears in 2007 and was also named in a 2007 minority report of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee as one of 400 “prominent scientists” who were said to dispute global warming.

Dr. Karlen proves that it is not only Scandinavian ground temperatures that have become cooler in recent times. He shows us that ocean temperatures indicated from Iceland, Jan Mayen and Faroe Islands actually shows a clear pattern of lower temperatures at the turn of this century than in the decade 1930-40.

His conclusion: “Still no sign of global warming in Scandinavia.”

Our conclusion: time to kill off the IPCC and finally bury the great global warming con.

Source: Hide The Decline EU

John O’Sullivan is a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his website. He offers his services free to the site and is not a site employee. Any opinions he expresses are his own and do not necessarily represent those of the site owner.

Possibly related posts:

  1. Hide the Decline Explained
  2. Another use for Mann’s “Hide the Decline?” trick?
  3. Major new analysis by Aussies show IPCC manipulated data
  4. Former lead author of IPCC report says, “Oops”
  5. Russian scientists’ say Climategate data rigged

19 Responses to “Scandinavia-gate: Climate cooling, but scientists “hide the decline””

  1. DougS says:

    There is virtually no end to the shenanigans of the IPCC.
    I’m not convinced though that they are in their final death throws – too many vested interests.
    All we can do is to keep up the pressure, which helps to ensure that MSM cannot go on ignoring the evidence.
    The fight continues.

  2. Maxx says:

    The IPCC report is about 3,000 pages long and I imagine that’s about how many pages of fraud they will find.

  3. [...] in Swedish? Looks like we have another case of playing fast and loose with the data, this time in Scandinavia: Climate skeptic blogger Frank Lansner at Hide the Decline (EU) has done an excellent job in [...]

  4. Tom Roe says:

    USA media blockade holding for the moment but it will break. Hearings now!

    • roy mcleod says:

      Let’s hope so Tom R.
      It’s been going on for longer than I thought at least. This little tibit from may 07, – 3 years back. http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/1091?page=3
      Excellent film about the great global swindle from, of all places, the left wing CBC in left wing Canada.
      Gosh, if they had all this solid evidence back then and still no one listened,… I wonder what it takes. I guess a really, really big court case. The Scopes trial revisited?

  5. roy mcleod says:

    I guess with American meteorologists voting 2 to 1 against global warming (with 25 percent not responding for fear of losing their jobs), perhaps we can even go back to the silly argument that science at least at times can be the consensus of scientists.


  6. osmund Bullock says:

    I’m confused. Surely the IPCC graph that is being compared against Scandinavian temps is for all of Northern Europe – that’s why it’s called “NEU”? It is confusingly positioned over Scandinavia, certainly, but the only other graph the IPCC shows for Europe on the map from which the graph comes is placed over the Mediterranean and is called “SEM”. I presume, therefore, that “SEM” is the temp graph for Southern Europe and the Med, and “NEU” is the graph for all of Northern Europe, including the British Isles, Germany, Poland, the Baltic States, European Russia, the Netherlands, Northern France, etc etc – not just Scandinavia. What is the point in comparing this with the graph for Scandinavia? Why would anyone expect them to be the same? And why didn’t you bother to check what the IPCC graph shows before writing this article? And besides, the (very rough) IPCC graph DOES show a cooling in the relevant period, especially between c1950 & c1980, though unsurprisingly different to that in Scandinavia alone. As far as I am aware, nobody has ever pretended that there was no cooling in the Northern Hemisphere in the years after 1940 – indeed it is a subject that has been much discussed, and very publicly.

    I don’t really understand what the problem is supposed to be here. Can anyone enlighten me?

      • osmund Bullock says:

        Um, OK…..but I was hoping to be enlightened, not just mildly insulted!

        The trouble with this piece is that if you are – as I am – a (at least in part) Climate Change sceptic, then this ‘scandal’ could turn out to be an own goal – if I am right and it is based on a mistake. If I am wrong, and the writer DID check, and the IPCC graph DOES show the Scandinavian temps only, then I offer my full apologies, and you are welcome to delete my post.

        There is plenty to be concerned about in the IPCC’s take on things without resorting to what may be an inaccurate accusation of fraud. But if it’s true, then – believe me – I am the first to want to know.

        Could Mr O’Sullivan check, please?

        • JOHN says:

          So now you’re a polite troll?

          • osmund Bullock says:

            Always was, John…..just as I was always a seeker of truth, even when I didn’t like it and it hurt. I presume that’s what we’re all after here – digging out the truth from under the piles of bias, lies, deceptions and vested interests?

            Anyway, best to wait for John O’Sullivan’s response – unless, of course, you are he?!

    • osmund, economy of space is the issue here. The graphs were selected by the editor not me and were to illustrate, from the many available, that there has been forty years of cooling before a warming ‘blip’ of 20 years ( 1975-95) the further cooling. Anyone following the links back to Chiefio’s blog and the links thereafter will find all other relevant graphs. The hub of the article is addressing the inexplicable cull of ‘cold’ weather stations, a recurring trend among alarmist climate scientists that demands explanation.

      • osmund Bullock says:

        OK, I understand. Yes, I’ve been to Frank Lansner’s source article and read the links there, and I’ve now found the original source of the story, a Nov ’09 piece by Willis Eschenbach here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/.
        But thanks for clearing up that your piece is basically a shorter reworking of Lasner’s without any further scientific input or investigation.

        Lavsner says he doesn’t know what the IPCC graph shows, but says that’s the IPCC’s fault for not making it clear in the first place. He also says Karlen tried to get clarification from the ‘warmists’/IPCC camp, but received inaccurate, misleading or irrelevant replies to emails requesting clarification. In fact, the Wattsup piece makes clear that ‘NEU’ in fact IS defined in the IPCC report, apparently in Appendix 9c. There still seem to be arguments about whether the IPCC graph includes ocean temps or not, but one thing is clear, it does NOT show the temps for Scandinavia alone: it is for a much, much larger area of Northern Europe including all the countries I mentioned in my original post. So, it’s a very poor graph to show as a comparison with the Scandinavia temps one.

        As I’ve already said, my worry is not that Karlen or Watts or Lasner or you are wrong, but that by using an image comparison that can easily be dismissed as irrelevant by ‘warmists’, you are making the ‘sceptic’ argument look weaker than it actually is. And that is something I do not wish to see.

  7. JOHN says:

    No I am not John O’Sullivan, I”m another JOHN. I just see enough people come in here demanding things and being unreasonable about it that I’m very leery when I see someone that isn’t a beliver here. If you’re really seeking the truth then cool, there are plenty of people in here who are way more knowledgeable about this than I am. Enjoy.

    • osmund Bullock says:

      …and plenty of them way more knowledgeable than me, too. John, I am not a ‘believer’ of either viewpoint, in the sense that I accept everything one side says to the complete exclusion of anything from a different angle. I try to treat everything I read with the same objectivity and scepticism (oh, how easy it is to trust only the things that confirm what we already believe!), and there are plenty of things written on both sides of the argument that are utter nonsense (and worse). I am also happy to put my real name to my post – and my name is unusual, so I’m not hard to track down. If that results in an envelope of something unpleasant through my letter box, so be it (though I sincerely hope not!).

      I am very happy to pick holes in many of the IPCC’s & politicians’ assumptions and biases, but I am worried that this particular one will turn out to be a slightly embarrassing non-starter – and as I said, that will not do the sceptics’ cause any favours.

      Thank you, anyway, for accepting me at my word. I am no internet troll – though interestingly, trolls were originally nasty little creatures from……Scandinavia! I wish you well.


  8. John says:

    Please stop tacking “gate” onto every word attached to the AGW fraud. It’s annoying and shows a lack of creativity.

This website is for sale for $10,000. Contact us if interested.